In a message dated 97-08-02 02:16:08 EDT, th81@umail.umd.edu (Thomas R.
Holtz, Jr.) writes:
<< as in all Science, the most parsimonious explanation is
prefered as it requires the fewest assumptions. >>
Nobody, as far as I know, has ever tested this particular assumption against
reality within the context of phylogenetic analysis. There is a good chance
it's wrong--that is, that the "most parsimonious" character distribution
produces an incorrect phylogeny--in a substantial number of analyses.
<<So, could we PLEASE leave our untested assumptions aside?>>
AHEM--